Posted on 08/19/2006 8:54:38 AM PDT by roostercogburn
CINCINNATI - The Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, rejected by a federal judge, is heading toward an appellate court loaded with the president's own appointees.
However, veterans of cases before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals caution that the court's mixed record in a broad range of rulings makes it difficult to predict how it will view the surveillance the administration says is crucial to stopping terrorists.
"It is not a foregone conclusion that a conservative-dominated court is going to say, 'President Bush did this and we're going to uphold what he wants,'" said Robert A. Sedler, a law professor at Wayne State University. "There are many issues in this case. Conservative judges often have a very strongly libertarian streak."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
If republicans do not beat Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the loons over the head with this issue over the next month and a half, they do not deserve to hold the congress. This should be the nail in the dems coffin.
This is just preparation for when they get trounced in the 6th Circuit. I think past Presidential precedence will rule the day.
"warrantless surveillance program"
The writer makes it sound as though
there is no NEED for such surveillance
tactics!
From now on, I'm dubbing these
idiots as ostriches. (See next
article re Inside Islam Group...)
You are right, they are setting up the storyline when it is reversed.
"Well, it is a partisan decision".
Funny, liberals never make decisions based on their political philosophy.
The libs are determined that we lose this thing!
Though it's impossible to predict how the court will rule on the NSA program, Greenwood said, it's easy to guess the last stop for the case: the U.S. Supreme Court.
With minor exceptions, the Supreme Court hears an appeal or not, as it chooses. If the Circuit Court decides for the government, I think it is likely that the Supreme Court will refuse review. It is also likely that either the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court will sidestep the main issue and reverse on the (valid) ground that the plaintiffs have no standing.
If a leftie can come up with this kind of ruling, it's only right that conservatives should be the ones to review it.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Actually, the Sixth Circuit is one of the most politically-oriented Courts of Appeals there is. I don't have all the links available, but in 2002 as the Michigan affirmative action cases were proceeding into the Court, there was tremendous jockeying from the Court itself - as to which panel would hear the cases - and through the Senate Judiciary Committee about the timing of proceeding with confirmation hearings for appointments to the Sixth Circuit. Stories are legion about the coordination between the liberal interest groups and the Dems on the Senate Judiciary committee to control (delay) the confirmation hearings. IIRC, this topic (the confirmation timing strategy and how it related to the Michigan cases) was among the subjects the Dems dicussed in the memos left on the computers that the Republicans were able to access.
Beyond that, cases in the Sixth Circuit with political implications bring out unbelieveable (for appellate judges) behavior on both sides. Some of the nastiest opinions - both for the majority and for the dissent - that you'll ever read. For a court of appeals, it's akin to outright war between the outcome-oriented libs and the real judges. You can find lots of examples of this by searches at Howard Bashman's "How Appealing" blog.
I expect outright war on this issue as well - it'll probably be decided en banc (by the full court of 15-16 judges) and break on political lines. Although no one will affirm Judge Taylor's reasoning.
"warrantless surveillance program"
This is a slur to describe what is lawful.
No warrant is necessary to track enemies or enemy agents.
They do not have constitutional rights.
The problem is that the courts have been twisting the meaning of "person" and "citizen". They have expanded the meaning of "person", along with Congress.
Congress needs to redefine "person" and "enemy" and then exclude the Courts from ruling.
Hard to pigeon-hole judges
Cincinnati attorney Scott Greenwood, a former ACLU general counsel (blah, blah) said regardless of the court's makeup, judges are likely to take a hard look at the separation of powers issues in the wiretapping case."Civil liberties are not liberal and they're not conservative," he said.
However, the 6th Circuit later ruled that a display at the Mercer County, Ky., courthouse was constitutional because it was part of a historical display that included replicas of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.
Ahhhh, the ACLU v MERCER COUNTY, one of my all time favorite ACLU smack-downs. Naturally there's more to the Mercer case than the ASSpress would print. And IMHO it was 'HUGH'.
These are my favorite parts of the decision and warm the cockles of my heart:
So excuse me all you legal eagle pundits and 'Professors', but I believe the ACLU's goose is cooked. The 6th Circuit is on to their nonsense and they are not amused.
A tendentious, reckless and fatuous judicial ruling forces this country into harms way by maintaining the 2001 legislation “to use all necessary and appropriate force” did not include electronic surveillance. However, communication intelligence has been a precondition to, and inherent within successful military operations at least since Sun Tzu discussed foreknowledge over 2,000 years ago. Through four presidents and 15 major terrorist attacks, we fled into illusions war was not declared upon us. This ruling perpetuates such derangements.
A barbaric pestilence arising from Muslim heresies seeks to consume us, and we are squandering a precious, perishable opportunity to thwart extraordinarily creative and lethal initiatives. The technological barriers to abundant human slaughter have fallen. Production of chemical and biological weapons can now be accomplished in cottage industries, or produced in duel use facilities, resembling creameries and breweries. For nuclear weapons, now fifty-year old technologies produced the Davy Crockett missile firing a 51-pound warhead yielding .01-kiloton, and the Astor nuclear torpedo carrying a Hiroshima size warhead. The Islamic cults, which infected Muslim faith within the 20th-Century, perceive human death as both means and end for their orthodoxy. They do not postulate a viable remnant for infrastructure or people, even including their own families, tribes and countries.
The Constitution, properly understood, assumes a viable, organized society housing civil liberties, and vigorous Commander in Chief powers, not encumbered by unrestrained dogma, to counter at inception these looming, incalculable miseries.
Yes, difficult to predict because, unlike the ideologically driven left wing Judges, Conservative Judges actually rule on the merits of the case based ON the law instead of basing their decisions on their political leanings and then CREATING a law to substantiate their ruling.
I wonder if you even realize what you are advocating. I wonder if you even see the big picture. Do you realize you are advocating radically changing our very form of government? There is so much "be careful what you ask for" type thinking going on, its starting to be more scary than the threat of terrorism.
THis case is probably going to be bounced for lack of standing.
MMSNBC is the John Marks Carr of television news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.